Research estimates OPV market worth $630 million by 2022

US Control of Ukraine Nuclear Plants sparks debate over ZNPP, Zaporizhzhia, sovereignty, safety, ownership, and international cooperation, as Washington touts utility expertise, investment, and modernization to protect critical energy infrastructure amid conflict.

Key Points

US management proposal for Ukraine's nuclear assets, notably ZNPP, balancing sovereignty, safety, and investment.

✅ Ukraine retains ownership; any transfer requires parliament approval.

✅ ZNPP safety risks persist amid occupation near active conflict.

✅ International reactions split: sovereignty vs. cooperation and investment.

In a recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war and where Russia is reportedly building power lines to reactivate the plant amid ongoing tensions. Trump suggested that American ownership of these plants could be the best protection for their infrastructure, a proposal that has sparked controversy in policy circles, and that the U.S. could assist in running them with its electricity and utility expertise.

Ukrainian Response

President Zelenskyy promptly addressed Trump's proposal, stating that while the conversation focused on the ZNPP, the issue of ownership was not discussed. He emphasized that all of Ukraine's nuclear power plants belong to the Ukrainian people and that any transfer of ownership would require parliamentary approval . Zelenskyy clarified that while the U.S. could invest in and help modernize the ZNPP, ownership would remain with Ukraine.

Security Concerns

The ZNPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, has been non-operational since its occupation by Russian forces in 2022. The plant's location near active conflict zones raises significant safety risks that the IAEA has warned of in connection with attacks on Ukraine's power grids, and its future remains uncertain. Ukrainian officials have expressed concerns about potential Russian provocations, such as explosions, especially after UN inspectors reported mines at the Zaporizhzhia plant near key facilities, if and when Ukraine attempts to regain control of the plant.

International Reactions

The proposal has elicited mixed reactions both within Ukraine and internationally. Some Ukrainian officials view it as an opportunistic move by the U.S. to gain control over critical infrastructure, while others see it as a potential avenue for modernization and investment, alongside expanding wind power that is harder to destroy in wartime. The international community remains divided on the issue, with some supporting Ukraine's sovereignty over its nuclear assets and others advocating for a possible agreement on power plant attacks to ensure the plant's safety and future operation.

President Trump's proposal to have the U.S. take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has sparked significant controversy. While the U.S. offers expertise and investment, Ukraine maintains that ownership of its nuclear assets is a matter of national sovereignty, even as it has resumed electricity exports to bolster its economy. The situation underscores the complex interplay between security, sovereignty, and international cooperation in conflict zones.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Spain Electricity Demand April 2020 saw a 17.3% year-on-year drop as COVID-19 lockdown curbed activity; renewables and wind power lifted the emission-free share, while combined cycle plants dominated islands, per REE data.

Key Points

A 17.3% y/y decline amid COVID-19 lockdown, with 47.9% renewables and wind at 21.3% of the national power mix.

✅ Mainland demand -17%; Balearic -27.6%; Canary -20.3%.

✅ Emission-free share: 49.7% on the peninsula in April.

✅ Combined cycle led islands; coal absent in Balearics.

Demand for electricity in Spain dropped by 17.3% year-on-year to an estimated 17,104 GWh in April, aligning with a 15% global daily demand dip during the pandemic, while the country’s economy slowed down under the national state of emergency and lockdown measures imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19.

According to the latest estimates by Spanish grid operator Red Electrica de Espana (REE), the decline in demand was registered across Spain’s entire national territory, similar to a 10% UK drop during lockdown. On the mainland, it decreased by 17% to 16,191 GWh, while on the Balearic and the Canary Islands it plunged by 27.6% and 20.3%, respectively.

Renewables accounted for 47.9% of the total national electricity production in April, echoing Britain’s cleanest electricity trends during lockdown. Wind power production went down 20% year-on-year to 3,730 GWh, representing a 21.3% share in the total power mix.

During April, electricity generation in the peninsula was mostly based on emission-free technologies, reflecting an accelerated power-system transition across Europe, with renewables accounting for 49.7%. Wind farms produced 3,672 GWh, 20.1% less compared to April 2019, while contributing 22% to the power mix, even as global demand later surpassed pre-pandemic levels in subsequent periods.

In the Balearic Islands, electricity demand of 323,296 MWh was for the most part met by combined cycle power plants, even as some European demand held firm in later lockdowns, which accounted for 78.3% of the generation. Renewables and emission-free technologies had a combined share of 6.4%, while coal was again absent from the local power mix, completing now four consecutive months without contributing a single MWh.

In the Canary Islands system, demand for power decreased to 558,619 MWh, even as surging demand elsewhere strained power systems across the world. Renewables and emission-free technologies made up 14.3% of the mix, while combined cycle power plants led with a 45.3% share.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Renewable Energy Curtailment highlights grid congestion, midday solar peaks, limited battery storage, and market constraints, with WEIM participation and demand response programs proposed to balance supply-demand and reduce wasted solar and wind generation.

Key Points

It is the deliberate reduction of solar and wind output when grid limits or low demand prevent full integration.

✅ Grid congestion restricts transmission capacity

✅ Midday solar peaks exceed demand, causing surplus

✅ Storage, WEIM, and demand response mitigate curtailment

California has long been a leader in renewable energy adoption, achieving a near-100% renewable milestone in recent years, particularly in solar and wind power. However, as the state continues to expand its renewable energy capacity, it faces a growing challenge: the curtailment of excess solar and wind energy. Curtailment refers to the deliberate reduction of power output from renewable sources when the supply exceeds demand or when the grid cannot accommodate the additional electricity.

Increasing Curtailment Trends

Recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) highlights a concerning upward trend in curtailments in California. In 2024, the state curtailed a total of 3,102 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity generated from solar and wind sources, surpassing the 2023 total of 2,660 GWh. This represents a 32.4% increase from the previous year. Specifically, 2,892 GWh were from solar, and 210 GWh were from wind, marking increases of 31.2% and 51.1%, respectively, compared to the first nine months of 2023.

Causes of Increased Curtailment

Several factors contribute to the rising levels of curtailment:

1. Grid Congestion: California's transmission infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with the rapid growth of renewable energy sources. This congestion limits the ability to transport electricity from generation sites to demand centers, leading to curtailment.
   
   

2. Midday Solar Peaks: Amid California's solar boom, solar energy production typically peaks during the midday when electricity demand is lower. This mismatch between supply and demand results in excess energy that cannot be utilized, necessitating curtailment.
   
   

3. Limited Energy Storage: While battery storage technologies are advancing, California's current storage capacity is insufficient to absorb and store excess renewable energy for later use. This limitation exacerbates curtailment issues.
   
   

4. Regulatory and Market Constraints: Existing market structures and regulatory frameworks may not fully accommodate the rapid influx of renewable energy, leading to inefficiencies and increased curtailment.

Economic and Environmental Implications

Curtailment has significant economic and environmental consequences. For renewable energy producers, curtailed energy represents lost revenue and undermines the economic viability of new projects. Environmentally, curtailment means that clean, renewable energy is wasted, and the grid may rely more heavily on fossil fuels to meet demand, counteracting the benefits of renewable energy adoption.

Mitigation Strategies

To address the rising curtailment levels, California is exploring several strategies aligned with broader decarbonization goals across the U.S.:

• Grid Modernization: Investing in and upgrading transmission infrastructure to alleviate congestion and improve the integration of renewable energy sources.
  
  

• Energy Storage Expansion: Increasing the deployment of battery storage systems to store excess energy during peak production times and release it during periods of high demand.
  
  

• Market Reforms: Participating in the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM), a real-time energy market that allows for the balancing of supply and demand across a broader region, helping to reduce curtailment.
  
  

• Demand Response Programs: Implementing programs that encourage consumers to adjust their energy usage patterns, such as shifting electricity use to times when renewable energy is abundant.

Looking Ahead

As California continues to expand its renewable energy capacity, addressing curtailment will be crucial to ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of its energy transition. By investing in grid infrastructure, energy storage, and market reforms, the state can reduce curtailment levels and make better use of its renewable energy resources, while managing challenges like wildfire smoke impacts on solar output. These efforts will not only enhance the economic viability of renewable energy projects but also contribute to California's 100% clean energy targets by maximizing the use of clean energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

While California's renewable energy sector faces challenges related to curtailment, proactive measures and strategic investments can mitigate these issues, as scientists continue to improve solar and wind power through innovation, paving the way for a more sustainable and efficient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Gaza Power Plant Shutdown underscores the Gaza Strip's fuel ban, Israeli blockade, and electricity crisis, cutting megawatts, disrupting hospitals and quarantine centers, and exposing fragile energy supply, GEDCO warnings, and public health risks.

Key Points

An abrupt halt of Gaza's sole power plant due to a fuel ban, deepening the electricity crisis and straining hospitals.

✅ Israeli fuel ban halts Gaza's only power plant

✅ Available supply drops far below 500 MW demand

✅ Hospitals and COVID-19 quarantine centers at risk

The only electricity plant in the Gaza Strip shut down yesterday after running out of fuel banned from entering the besieged enclave by the Israeli occupation, Gaza Electricity Distribution Company announced.

“The power plant has shut down completely,” the company said in a brief statement, as disruptions like China power cuts reveal broader grid vulnerabilities.

Israel banned fuel imports into Gaza as part of punitive measures over the launching incendiary balloons from the Strip.

On Sunday, GEDCO warned that the industrial fuel for the electricity plant would run out, mirroring Lebanon's fuel shortage challenges, on Tuesday morning.

Since 2007, the Gaza Strip suffered under a crippling Israeli blockade that has deprived its roughly two million inhabitants of many vital commodities, including food, fuel and medicine, and regional strains such as Iraq's summer electricity needs highlight broader power insecurity.

As a result, the coastal enclave has been reeling from an electricity crisis, similar to when the National Grid warned of short supply in other contexts.

The Gaza Strip needs some 500 megawatts of electricity – of which only 180 megawatts are currently available – to meet the needs of its population, while Iran supplies about 40% of Iraq's electricity in the region.

Spokesman of the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Ashraf Al Qidra, said the lack of electricity undermines offering health services across Gaza’s hospitals.

He also warned that the lack of electricity would affect the quarantine centres used for coronavirus patients, reinforcing the need to keep electricity options open during the pandemic.

Gaza currently has three sources of electricity: Israel, which provides 120 megawatts and is advancing coal use reduction measures; Egypt, which supplies 32 megawatts; and the Strip’s sole power plant, which generates between 40 and 60 megawatts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News